Re: [Techspec] Additional comment on draft-mankin-pub-req-08

(resending a slightly modified version from the correct address
-- sorry)

--On Monday, 12 June, 2006 18:19 +0100 Elwyn Davies
<elwynd@googlemail.com> wrote:

> I appreciate that the last call is strictly over, but one
> extra point came to mind when considering
> draft-iab-rfc-editor-00.
> 
> The requirements in draft-mankin split into two parts:
> - Those that are specific to the IETF document 'stream' -
> most;y the 'front end' of the process
> - Those that apply mainly to the back end of the process and
> are relevant to any documents that are published by the RFC
> Editor
> 
> For convenience when specifying requirements for IAB and IRTF
> documents etc it would be helpful if the two types of
> requirements were split into separate sections for easier
> cross referencing.

Elwyn,

This is, of course, one of the meta-problems with the document
that several of us have tried to point out in different ways.
The community has been repeatedly assured that it applies _only_
to the IETF document stream.  If that is true, then the material
you describe as "generic" is advisory at best.  At worst, it
needs separate evaluation via other processes.

If it is not true, then the document needs an entirely different
type of review and the IESG may not be an appropriate body to
manage that review.

Of course, those comments don't make your suggestion about
reorganizing the document and clearly identifying applicability
any less useful.

       john

_______________________________________________
Techspec mailing list
Techspec@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/techspec